Town Square

Eshoo, Lofgren seek more answers before Syria vote

With the U.S. Congress preparing to debate a potential military strike at Syria, Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, have co-authored a letter laying out the major questions that they say must be answered before they make a decision.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
logged in.
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
click here
to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment

Posted by Jerry
a resident of North Whisman
on Sep 3, 2013 at 2:28 pm

You would think that by now we realized that the controlled surgical strike is a complete fiction. When you start bombing a country, the aftermath is unpredictable and getting sucked into ever increasing conflict is a definite possibility. The 5 wars we are in now are draining our financial resources; we may win on the battlefield(s) and crumble internally for lack of good schooling, adequate infrastructure, and reasonable health care.

And why are we morally insulted by the use of chemical weapons? We hardly even blinked at 100,000 machetted to death in Africa? 3000 children die every day from hunger around the world. Are those deaths somehow more acceptable because they brought about by horrendous violence or just plain global neglect? We need a moral compass that isn't oriented to oil. Apparently if Syria were in southern Africa we wouldn't be bothered at all.

Posted by Martin Omander
a resident of Rex Manor
on Sep 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Whether the US steps in depends on a lot more than the raw number of deaths. We have to consider the stability of the region, our current military capacity, our allies, the likelihood of future deaths, the chance of success, etc.

Having said that, I think most of those factors weigh against military action in Syria. Punishing a dictator without overthrowing him never worked well in the past. The situation is truly horrific in Syria, but I don't see how a volley of US cruise missiles would make it better.

These two had better not vote for military action. Are you kidding me they were vocal anti war zealots before. Now because it is Obama who wants to save face over having his "red line" crossed they are ready to bomb away. Obama needs to think before he talks/ reads from a telepromter . They vote to decrease the size of the military over and over but want to starts more problems for a smaller Army.

Posted by Regina
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2013 at 8:54 am

Please vote no on military intervention in Syria.

It is more effective to shame Assad and win allies to condemn his actions than to go to war...The Arab League opposes military action.

Moreover, the US assumes responsibility for the war in Syria, in the moment the US intervenes militarily. Enormous costs will be entailed.
It looks perverse that the Republicans cannot agree to a national budget but can agree to spend millions on another war, this should make President Obama pause to think about the needs of his own country which is his primary responsibility.

Posted by Jon
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 5, 2013 at 12:00 am

The Obama administration has not made the case that the Assad regime were the culprits behind the chemical attack. There is evidence to show that it was chemicals supplied by Saudi Arabia to the rebels in Syria, who then used them and purposely pinned it on the Assad regime to garner popular support for leading the US into action.

If the US government can't debate the issue in full view of all US citizens, and instead have to discuss behind closed doors, then there must be dirty dealings and/or dirty laundry.

Remember Powell's claim of WMDs used by Iraq? Nothing was ever found, but the Bush administration got what they wanted anyway and had to act unilaterally to get it. It's the same thing here. Someone on the top of the pyramid wants Assad out. Why? Because he's standing in the way of a natural gas pipeline running through Syria that would supply Europe with competing energy supplies. Europe currently gets most of its energy from Russia, which is lucrative for Putin's Gazprom. And surprise, surprise, Putin is very much against any US intervention in Syria.

And why is Saudi Arabia so gung-ho for US blasting Assad out? They're a puppet state run by the US. They, and other OPEC members sell their oil to other countries at controlled/manipulated prices and ONLY ACCEPT US DOLLARS for payment. This is the "petro dollar" and it's what's kept the US so strong these last decades. Because it means that since they only accept US dollars, all countries must keep a certain amount of US dollars in their foreign reserves in order to satisfy their energy needs. It also allows the US to run such huge deficits and trillion dollar debts because OPEC nations just turn around and recycle those dollars by buying US debt in the form of US Treasuries.

Libya's old Moammar Gadhafi had made a move to end the petro dollar system when he suggested to the North African Union that they should start up a gold-backed currency that could be used for foreign trade, including oil. So his days were numbered. Saddam Hussein met a similar fate. Even though he had earlier been a US ally in fighting the Iranians after the ouster of the US planted Shah, he turned against his masters when he suggested that Iraqi oil should be able to trade in other currencies. So he had to go. Iran's oil bourse sought to trade in other currencies as well, but the US not only increased sanctions, but took them off the SWIFT system and completely halted their ability to trade.

But this is coming to an end. Syria is the last stand. Russia and China recognize this. They might just stand up to the bully this time. Syria is a major piece of the global chessboard.

Make no mistake, the US must intervene in Syria in order to keep the game running. But they can't tell us the real reasons - that if they don't, they'll lose the hegemony they've held over the rest of the world since WWII.

Research this yourself. The mainstream news outlets are too beholden the the status-quo to do anything but entertain the public.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Monta Loma
on Sep 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm

When Libyan agents bombed the Berlin disco on 4/5/86, President Regan responded unilaterally on 4/14/86. There was no waffling, weeks of fact finding, nor attempts to shift responsibility to congress. The world took notice that there is a price to pay for such behavior against the USA. The problem with Obama, Lofgren, Eshoo and their Marxist peers is that they don't understand that showing weakness and indecision internationally destroys the US in the long term.

For those worried about war costs, welfare and aid to illegals can be zeroed out to pay for it.